tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.comments2021-11-29T03:00:09.532-05:00Transit FuturesTransit Futureshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-91202584975142452932015-03-06T12:22:27.273-05:002015-03-06T12:22:27.273-05:00They're narrowbodies like the 737 and A320.They're narrowbodies like the 737 and A320.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-75576066977115279672015-03-06T12:19:03.159-05:002015-03-06T12:19:03.159-05:00Transit projects should be grandiose when they nee...Transit projects should be grandiose when they need to be grandiose, while they should be more modest when that's what's required. What's great about the O-Train is that it delivers all the benefits of grade-separated rail transit, which is usually a pretty grandiose project, with the cost of painting a bus lane.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-88962362538559914042015-02-10T19:16:43.695-05:002015-02-10T19:16:43.695-05:00Allegiant's fleet is a bunch of MD-80s, what c...Allegiant's fleet is a bunch of MD-80s, what catagory do those fall into? IAN! Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000346268609562407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-59882273847524942472015-02-10T12:09:43.905-05:002015-02-10T12:09:43.905-05:00How do we make public transport projects less gran...How do we make public transport projects less grandiose? IAN! Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000346268609562407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-14858850748893196962013-09-19T13:56:02.755-04:002013-09-19T13:56:02.755-04:00yes project is started ...in intial stage
mississa...yes project is started ...in intial stage<br />mississauga road widening and other site deveopement already startedAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15045236284228469850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-65776924374381724642013-02-27T13:55:10.127-05:002013-02-27T13:55:10.127-05:00India is another interesting case. I believe sepa...India is another interesting case. I believe separation of freight and passenger corridors is common there.fbfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05055354576439140125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-63654640558384961072013-01-14T11:10:12.753-05:002013-01-14T11:10:12.753-05:00To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossibl...To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for freight trains to be time competitive with trucks. The problem, as UP and BNSF have found, is that operating very fast intermodal trains has huge detrimental impacts on line capacity. It just isn't worth it for the relatively small amount of freight that is that time-sensitive.<br /><br />FedEx has just started using rail for the first time, but at least for now it will be for its less time-sensitive Freight business. http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2011/01/09/guess-who-s-going-intermodal.aspxTransit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-49818016047173115722013-01-14T10:48:19.293-05:002013-01-14T10:48:19.293-05:00That's a very good point about the elevators a...That's a very good point about the elevators and staircases, which is why I wish the Union Station reconstruction project had been designed with a future CityRail-type system in mind. At the very least, the idea of raising platforms should have been taken into account and the platform capacity study should have been completed before the station improvements were designed. That said, modern regional rail rolling stock has a considerably higher floor level than the GO bilevels, so I'd rather see the platforms raised to their level. Having low floors on trains brings considerable technical, operational, and financial costs. It's a lot better to just build higher platforms.<br /><br />You're also absolutely right about through-running, and it is indeed done on the Lakeshore line, but with a painful, capacity-killing, and ultimately unnecessary long pause at Union. All lines should be through-run, with staff changes and any other delaying procedures carried out at the terminal stations. It makes no sense to use scarce platform capacity occupying the most expensive real estate in the city when it can be done at terminal stations where there's loads of space.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-32881736996561361112013-01-14T10:40:16.225-05:002013-01-14T10:40:16.225-05:00Trucks with two driver teams and sleeper cabs are ...Trucks with two driver teams and sleeper cabs are actually quite common for transcontinental trips, permitting the truck to keep driving 24 hours a day. UPS uses intermodal rail for much of its transcontinental shipping, but for the most time-sensitive traffic it continues to use trucks. When the railroads tried to take some of that business, the cost to their capacity of running such an expedited service was too great. Top speeds aren't really relevant on such a long trip. You have to look at average speeds. By their own measurement, BNSF's expedited intermodal trains cover about 800 miles per day (http://www.bnsf.com/customers/next-gen-intermodal/pdf/reliable.pdf), which is very good by freight rail standards but still only an average of 33 miles per hour. A truck with a two driver team can certainly beat that by quite a bit. The reason trains are slower (and will always be slower than trucks) is time spent sitting in yards, loading and unloading, and drayage. To be very clear, freight rail competes primarily on price, even for fast intermodal traffic, and not on speed. That's not a bad thing; the overwhelming majority of freight traffic is not so time sensitive that the difference would matter if the rail service were reliable and less expensive. Since most North American freight railways can pretty much guarantee that these days (as opposed to in the service meltdown era of the 90s), we're seeing massive growth in the intermodal sector.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-26612259047124142702013-01-14T02:45:47.606-05:002013-01-14T02:45:47.606-05:00Laliberte, who was appointed by Harper as the ax-m...Laliberte, who was appointed by Harper as the ax-man at VIA, carefully arranged to cut the busy trains to Sarnia, Windsor, and Niagara Falls, as well as to slash the Ocean to Halifax below the minimum level of one-a-day.<br /><br />This is guaranteed to crush ridership.<br /><br />VIA's rolling stock is all antiques. There are no plans to get new ones.<br /><br />Abandoning the Southwestern Ontario market is particularly stupid in business terms; it seems that the federal government expects GO to pick up the difference, and GO appears to be trying, but GO has a lot of projects on its plate and not enough money. <br /><br />Abandoning the Halifax service is simply designed to further eliminate political support.<br /><br />Nothing will improve until Harper is out of office, hopefully in 2015. An NDP government would probably improve things. Unfortunately, that will only happen if the Liberals manage to finally implode -- the defects of first-past-the-post means there's no room for that 19% Liberal vote (along with the 6% Bloc vote and 6% Green vote). <br /><br />And you're not going to change away from first-past-the-post to proportional representation unless you elect a radically different party (NDP, perhaps).Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-25228381306997295122013-01-14T02:35:28.099-05:002013-01-14T02:35:28.099-05:00It should be viable to raise the platform level to...It should be viable to raise the platform level to the "low boarding" level of the bilevels without demolishing the train shed.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the elevators and staircases need to be designed to arrive at the new, higher height, which should have been done during planning. :-P<br /><br />The proposal to simply knock out some tracks and fill them in with platform is the most effective way to widen the platforms. This will only work if *through-running* is done. Through-running could be done *NOW*. Through-running IS done on the Lakeshore Line.<br /><br />As for VIA, its procedures are archaic, its rolling stock is archaic, and every single government seems to have been determined to crush it. If it ever gets new rolling stock, it can get low-floor trains; something can be done about the Montreal Central and Quebec platforms.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-66698398405395898372013-01-14T02:27:40.817-05:002013-01-14T02:27:40.817-05:00Does anyone have a map of the current track layout...Does anyone have a map of the current track layout? I can't get a picture of the flyovers west of Union. I'm trying to mentally work out the correct through-running couplets to get minimal interference using the current infrastructure.<br /><br />Obviously, Lakeshore East should flow through to Lakeshore West, and VIA Corridor rail should flow through on the same pair, with the services having a total of four tracks/platforms at Union Station. But it's less clear to me how to line up the northern branches. The flyovers mean it's not as simple as pairing them "outer to outer" until we get to the middle.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-23301947561867824652013-01-14T02:23:25.213-05:002013-01-14T02:23:25.213-05:00There is not supposed to be an on-street section i...There is not supposed to be an on-street section in the MIDDLE; I believe the on-street sections are supposed to be at either END. This works out OK in lots of cities.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-39073272961378150372013-01-14T02:12:43.661-05:002013-01-14T02:12:43.661-05:00Two points:
(1) In Europe bulk freight goes by wat...Two points:<br />(1) In Europe bulk freight goes by water. This doesn't work in most of the US (though actually it does happen through the Great Lakes).<br /><br />(2) Two different catenary heights are not a problem; pantographs can be built with a wide range of heights.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-39785418456194973792013-01-14T02:11:21.101-05:002013-01-14T02:11:21.101-05:00Rail is quicker for cross-country freight trips. ...Rail is quicker for cross-country freight trips. Truck drivers have to sleep (I know of no trucking company with a "hotseat" system, maybe there is one) and are limited to 65 mph (in most places).<br /><br />Freight trains can keep switching drivers every 8 hours and can run at 80 mph + if the freight haulers choose to.<br /><br />Really time-sensitive cargoes go by plane. <br /><br />Anything less time-sensitive is cheaper and just as fast to send by rail *over long distances*, which is why UPS and FedEx are two of the biggest customers of the freight railroads in the US.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-60650919400762923272013-01-14T02:08:03.343-05:002013-01-14T02:08:03.343-05:00Russia knows how to run both freight trains (one o...Russia knows how to run both freight trains (one of the largest and most efficient networks in the world, comparable to the US) and passenger trains (one of the largest and most efficient networks in the world, comparable to Western Europe).<br /><br />Maybe someone should ask them how to do it.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-51878499126425110272012-11-06T21:50:11.563-05:002012-11-06T21:50:11.563-05:00The utilities are currently being fed t the site a...The utilities are currently being fed t the site and lane expansion is occurring on feeder routes in and around the area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-78314414094038683462012-10-23T21:35:02.890-04:002012-10-23T21:35:02.890-04:00I forgot to mention that loading gauge is as frust...I forgot to mention that loading gauge is as frustrating to deal with as platform height. Obviously if we were to buy off-the-shelf European (non-Scandinavian) rolling stock, it would be considerably narrower than we could accommodate on North American track. For a project as large as Toronto CityRail, it would probably make sense to order redesigned stock with a wider profile, but that would add considerable complexity compared with an off-the-shelf order.<br /><br />I'm not particularly keen on double-deck rolling stock for CityRail. Given that Toronto is nowhere near exhausting the physical capacity limitations of its rail corridors, it seems to me that the loading and unloading benefits at Union of single-level stock greatly outweigh the capacity benefits of bilevels. I suppose at some point in the future if a CityRail corridor were actually moving as many people as RER A, we could look at something like the MI 09. For Regional Express trains serving more distant points (Kitchener, Niagara, Barrie), bilevels make more sense.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-32170074205949832382012-10-23T21:20:15.229-04:002012-10-23T21:20:15.229-04:00Thanks again for the comments. The only problem wi...Thanks again for the comments. The only problem with raising the catenary is that you would then presumably be dealing with incompatible catenary on slow and fast tracks of the same corridor. I suppose that's not an insurmountable problem, especially if the regional rail routes operate on a more-or-less exclusive pair of tracks like the Munich and Berlin S-Bahns.<br /><br />An exclusive pair of tracks for CityRail, which is pretty much what I modeled in that capacity post, would resolve the platform height issue as well: they could be built perhaps to the German S-Bahn standard, which would give us access to a massive pool of rolling stock without the need for modification. Even better, Bombardier is a big player in S-Bahn rolling stock, which might help in Canada.<br /><br />Still, platform heights make my brain hurt more than any other aspect of this stuff. Even the Europeans barely seem to be approaching any kind of standard. I noticed that the new Talent 2 is designed with a sloping floor so that it can provide level boarding at a range of platform heights. That would be useful if we had any existing infrastructure to deal with, but not since we'd be building everything from scratch. The only two stations in Canada that have high platforms are Central Station in Montreal and Palais in Quebec, which I believe are considerably higher than the European standard. It seems to me that it would be easiest to adopt two separate standards for CityRail and intercity trains, but that would greatly hinder opportunities for cross-platform transfers.<br /><br />It shouldn't be a major problem to remove oversize freight from most of the CityRail network. Most CN traffic uses the freight-only bypass around the city, so only the Milton corridor would need to be shared. A dedicated pair of CityRail tracks on that route would likely be necessary anyway.<br /><br />A CityRail proposal benefits greatly from fairly decent pre-existing infrastructure, with plenty more on the way. Unfortunately, the current plans are a bit ridiculous, assuming that each corridor will need its own pair of tracks to run three or four trains per hour in the peak. GO/Metrolinx's current long-term plans would therefore provide more track capacity than we are ever likely to require. Unfortunately, the same assumptions have led to planning for additional Union platform capacity (apparently it is impossible to dwell for less than 5 minutes at a platform). The new Downtown Rapid Transit study, about which I will write more soon, talks about something vaguely resembling regional rail on the Lakeshore route. Unfortunately the cost estimate is outrageous since building a cavern station under Union is assumed to be "necessary."<br /><br />You're absolutely right that additional infill stations would make a lot of sense. When designing the map, we were quite conservative. We also did not include any corridors that aren't currently used by GO or any diversions from existing corridors to serve major destinations, with one small exception. The ultimate goal would be for CityRail to serve as a rapid transit system in Toronto and the outer suburbs, with comparable bus connections to what the TTC subway already enjoys.<br /><br />In terms of freight rail, I agree that long-distance routes are by far the strongest, though CN and CP have both made pretty impressive strides in the Montreal-Toronto-Chicago intermodal segment.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-73032864199253170592012-10-20T21:19:48.035-04:002012-10-20T21:19:48.035-04:00First, the obstacles: they tend to be problems for...First, the obstacles: they tend to be problems for higher-speed trains more than for regional trains. In both India and China, double-stacked freights run under catenary, and the passenger train pantographs are modified to be taller. You can't do this at high speeds because a taller pantograph increases noise and aerodynamic drag, but for a 100 km/h regional train, or for that matter a 160 km/h regional express, it's no big deal. (In the example I brought up of Providence it's an even smaller deal because the Northeastern rail network doesn't have the loading gauge for double-stacked freight except on a few freight-dedicated lines.)<br /><br />Clearance can be dealt with in one of three ways: ban oversize freight if none needs to run on the line (this is the case on the Northeast Corridor and the Hudson Line), build platforms with retracting plates (this is done on the Worcester Line), choose a floor height lower than oversize freight such as 550 mm. In Toronto's case, all three are possibilities: Lakeshore has extra tracks so oversize freight could be routed on the express tracks if necessary, retracting plates are always an option, and 550 mm is friendlier to bilevels anyway, and the only reasons to choose high floors and platforms are compatibility with high-speed rail (which wants high platforms), and a preference for single-level trains' faster boarding and unloading times and greater ease of moving between cars.<br /><br />In the UK, Spain, and Japan, platforms are high, and I think Benelux, Norway, and Germany's height is also too high for oversize freight. But Russia is moving toward oversize-compatible 550 mm, and the rest of Europe is already committed to 550 mm, which means single-level TGVs, ICEs, Italian HSR, and so on do not have level boarding, which is not a great industry practice but is understandable in countries with so many preexisting platforms. In Canada HSR should have high platforms, since 550 and 1,220 mm are equally foreign platform heights.<br /><br />I have great praise for your CityRail proposal. Toronto has preexisting infrastructure elements making it a far easier project than in any other North American city. The only critical comment I have is that maybe (and I really mean maybe) you should include more infill stations. When I Google Earth-toured the Lakeshore lines I saw many locations for infill between Mimico and Danforth, e.g. both ends of Queen Street, Rogers Centre, Gerrard Square, Windermere.<br /><br />As for rail vs. truck freight in various countries, Canada benefits greatly from rail-friendly geography: the Trans-Canada Highway isn't an expressway and never will be, and the long distances between the urban centers benefit rail. My guess is that if you look at mode shares within southern Ontario and Quebec, trucks are dominant, just like between Sydney and Melbourne.<br /><br />I looked and couldn't find value mode shares in Europe. If you'll let me be a hack for a few sentences, let us consult page 28 of <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/doc/2011/pocketbook2011.pdf" rel="nofollow">this dataset</a>, where we'll see that of <i>external</i> trade involving the EU, rail accounts for 3.5% of ton-km and 1.3% of value. If the value:tonnage ratio is the same for domestic traffic (and I would guess it's higher because of lack of bulk transcontinental traffic through Russia) then the value share is also 4%. On a less hackish note, DB Schenker Rail has <a href="http://www.dbschenker.com/ho-en/about_dbschenker_new/profile_.html" rel="nofollow">turnover of €4.92 billion a year</a>, counting all of its European business and not just Britain, which has substantially less rail freight than the European average.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-3959360739397024222012-10-19T11:07:32.829-04:002012-10-19T11:07:32.829-04:00I've always thought that ton-miles were someti...I've always thought that ton-miles were sometimes a misleading way to measure freight rail, and value shipped is definitely also a relevant measurement. I'd be interested in seeing those figures for Switzerland and the value share in the States. That may be a bit of a special case, though. The Swiss have invested a large amount of money to create what amounts to a rail bridge across their country, aided in no small part by astronomical fees for trucks using their highways. Even if the Europeans are doing better at climbing the value chain, the difference in scale is pretty striking. DB Schenker controls the large majority of freight rail in the UK and had a revenue of 395 million pounds in 2009 (the newest figures I could easily find). CN alone had revenue in the same year of $5 billion.<br /><br />That's a very interesting point about scheduling freight trains. How do you get around all the other obstacles to mixing North American freight and rail regional rail, though? Obviously there's the FRA problem, but hopefully that could be dealt with. But then there's the catenary/double-stack clearance issue; platform height; rail wear and superelevation (though those are less of an issue for slower regional trains); and freight rail grade requirements when building new infrastructure.<br /><br />That's a good point about Australia. I'd be interested to also learn more about Russia, China and India, which all have a large amount of of both passengers and freight on rails. Japan's always interesting too, though they're not really a leader in freight rail. JR did build the Musashino Line to get freight out of Central Tokyo, but it seems like they now use it more as a circumferential passenger route.<br /><br />I have great respect for your blog and I'd be very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the CityRail idea or anything else posted here.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-54403002908728352582012-10-18T17:16:55.370-04:002012-10-18T17:16:55.370-04:00You say that in Europe rail is a failure, but what...You say that in Europe rail is a failure, but what instead happens is that rail freight can charge higher rates because it offers better service; this is the Swiss approach, leading to North American mode shares of ton-km and higher mode shares of value. (I don't know in Canada, but in the US rail's share of the value of freight carried is 4%.) A large majority of the difference between American and European rail freight mode share in ton-km is due to physical and economic geography; lacking the opportunity for many transcontinental coal trains, Europe is instead looking for higher-value goods to carry on rails.<br /><br />Running a decent regional rail system in the US can be done alongside freight, even on the same tracks, depending on location. I don't know the details in Toronto, but in Providence, the average speed of <a href="http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/commuter-rail-urban-infill-stations-and-shuttle-train-rapid-transit/" rel="nofollow">frequent-stop EMUs as proposed by Peter Bassard</a> almost exactly the same as that of freight trains that use the line today. Local trains have a higher top speed than freight trains but make stops, and this averages to a similar average speed; at low and medium frequencies, these trains can share tracks, and only at very high frequencies do these differences require track separation. A commenter from Germany, I forget who, once noted the same: on four-track mainlines he observed that all-stop regional trains and freight trains ran at the same average speed, so his regional train would overtake the freight train on the adjacent track in between stations while during station stops the freight train would pull ahead.<br /><br />Speaking of freight and CityRail, do you know how things work in Australia? In Australia there is no intercity rail worth mentioning, and the tracks are dominated by freight; on the transcontinental market, rail has 80% of the land market by ton-km. But within eastern Australia, rail has a much lower market share, partly because the distances are shorter and partly because within the urban areas the infrastructure is dominated by regional rail.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-71118869018252829422012-10-14T16:45:11.040-04:002012-10-14T16:45:11.040-04:00Rail will never be quicker than trucks. Even in Eu...Rail will never be quicker than trucks. Even in Europe, freight isn't going to be quicker since trucks can deliver door-to-door. Rail competes on price.<br /><br />You're right that freight is becoming more time sensitive, but that's only because freight railways are trying to break into that market, which has been entirely reserved to trucks for the last forty years. Obviously speeding up freight rail is beneficial for some cargoes (esp. intermodal) and getting closer to truck speeds is certainly desirable, but not at the expense of increasing costs. That's why UP and BNSF have abandoned so many of their premium ultra-express services in recent years.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-16250763806293904632012-10-14T16:33:41.192-04:002012-10-14T16:33:41.192-04:00They won't use trucks if rail is quicker!
Als...They won't use trucks if rail is quicker!<br /><br />Also, I think more and more freight is becoming time-sensitive.TomWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453251490705724225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2960384259042518552.post-54628115512716018912012-10-14T15:03:58.346-04:002012-10-14T15:03:58.346-04:00You're absolutely right about European freight...You're absolutely right about European freight competing on speed while North American freight competes on price. I think that's a big part of why freight railways in North America are so vastly more successful than they are in Europe. Most freight shippers are much more concerned with price than they are with speed. For the small minority that are desperate to get their goods as quickly as possible, they'll use trucks anyway.Transit Futureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05666666106976550832noreply@blogger.com